Dismissed

M/S. Balrampur Chini Mills Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2007WP/2380/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding refusal of refund and rejection of appeal, the High Court dismissed the petition without quashing the order. The Court held that disputed questions of fact and lack of knowledge regarding impugned orders preclude inquiry in the present writ petition. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no quashing order, no refund granted.

M/S. Balrampur Chini Mills Limited Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2380 2007

¶5

M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. ... Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Nilesh Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Vinay Sonpal,A.G.P. for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

¶10

22ND OCTOBER 2007.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

. Against the order dated 28th December 2006,

¶13

whereby the Minister, Home Department, Mantralaya,

¶14

after considering the material placed on record

¶15

observed in para 3 as under :-

¶16

"In view of this, the question of refund

¶17

of amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest 16% per

¶18

annum to you by the government does not arise.

¶19

Further it is stated that in the above said

¶20

matter Appeal made by you to the Government is

¶21

: 2 :

¶22

not against the statutory orders of the

¶23

Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State,

¶24

Mumbai and is against the letter sent to you by

¶25

the Commissioner, State Excise, Maharashtra

¶26

State, Mumbai hence it does not stands as an

¶27

appeal."

¶28

After hearing both the parties and considering

¶29

the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent - State, I am of the view that the various questions of facts has raised and specifically of no knowledge of such

¶30

order which are just cannot be gone into the present

¶31

Writ Petition.

¶32

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

¶33

basically,	co	ntended	that	the	impugned	order	be	quashed
and	set	aside	on the	ground	of breach	of	principle	of

¶34

natural justice. The person was authorised person or

¶35

not is again matter of disputed facts.

¶36

The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents

¶37

further	submitted	that	i	n such	matter	there	is	no
question	of	refund	of	amount	as	prayed,	especially,	in
view	of	the fact	that	the Co	mmissioner	of	the	State

¶38

: 3 :

¶39

Excise	Ma	harashtra	St	ate had	gran	ted th	e regi	stration
of	form	‘K’ a	nd	permitted	the	petitioner	to import	the
liquor	to	sell	in	the Maha	rashtra	State	for	which
labels	were	ap	proved.	In	such	situatio	n, inspite	of
the	approval	in	the	petition,	if	such	person failed	to
import	the	liquor.		The acti	on of	non	refund	just
cannot	be	said	to	be beyond	the	purview	of law	and

¶40

rules, in question. The impugned action/order,

¶41

therefore, is well within the law.

¶42

However, keeping all points open as the remedy on

¶43

given disputed question of facts lies somewhere else,

¶44

the present petition is dismissed.

¶45

No costs.

¶46

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

M/S. Balrampur Chini Mills Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Balrampur Chini Mills Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranider L. Bhatia Vs Bedekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Jagdish Makhija Vs Bedekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Meena v. Matta Vs Bedekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Dattatrya Muttaya Bura Vs Satish Dattatraya Purandare

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kesardevi Lal Pratap Singh and Anr.

Vinayak Govind Dhole and Ors. Vs Harihar Shankar Dhole and Ors.